Purpose: Metastatic rectal cancer (mRC) is a highly lethal and complex disease that demands a multidisciplinary treatment approach. However, the clinical effectiveness of radiotherapy (RT) for de novo mRC remains controversial and uncertain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined medical records from Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital for patients with histologically confirmed de novo mRC diagnosed between January 2015 and December 2020. All patients received standard systemic therapy and radical surgery when feasible. The primary outcome, overall survival (OS), was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable analysis was performed using a Cox regression model. Results: Among 271 patients included in the analysis, 117 received RT and 154 did not. The median OS was significantly longer in the RT group compared with the non-RT group (27.8 months vs. 21.9 months; P=0.046). Multivariate analysis identified several independent predictors of OS: age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26–2.27; P=0.001), primary tumor resection (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.90–3.61; P<0.001), M1b or M1c disease (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.44–2.69; P<0.001), and receipt of RT (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.02–1.94; P=0.036). Conclusion RT significantly improves OS in patients with mRC, underscoring its role in treatment strategies. These findings support its inclusion in therapeutic protocols and highlight the need for larger, multicenter trials to confirm and extend these results.

Background/Aims: Treatment indications for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remain contentious, particularly for patients with mild alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. We aimed to evaluate treatment effects in this patient population. Methods: This rollover study extended a placebo-controlled trial that enrolled non-cirrhotic patients with CHB and ALT levels below two times the upper limit of normal. Following 3 years of randomized intervention with either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or placebo, participants were rolled over to open-label TDF for 3 years. Liver biopsies were performed before and after the treatment to evaluate histopathological changes. Virological, biochemical, and serological outcomes were also assessed (NCT02463019). Results: Of 146 enrolled patients (median age 47 years, 80.8% male), 123 completed the study with paired biopsies. Overall, the Ishak fibrosis score decreased in 74 (60.2%), remained unchanged in 32 (26.0%), and increased in 17 (13.8%) patients (p<0.0001). The Knodell necroinflammation score decreased in 58 (47.2%), remained unchanged in 29 (23.6%), and increased in 36 (29.3%) patients (p=0.0038). The proportion of patients with an Ishak score ≥ 3 significantly decreased from 26.8% (n=33) to 9.8% (n=12) (p=0.0002). Histological improvements were more pronounced in patients switching from placebo. Virological and biochemical outcomes also improved in placebo switchers and remained stable in patients who continued TDF. However, serum HBsAg levels did not change and no patient cleared HBsAg. Conclusions In CHB patients with minimally raised ALT, favorable histopathological, biochemical, and virological outcomes were observed following 3-year TDF treatment, for both treatment-naïve patients and those already on therapy.

Background/Aims: Treatment indications for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remain contentious, particularly for patients with mild alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. We aimed to evaluate treatment effects in this patient population. Methods: This rollover study extended a placebo-controlled trial that enrolled non-cirrhotic patients with CHB and ALT levels below two times the upper limit of normal. Following 3 years of randomized intervention with either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or placebo, participants were rolled over to open-label TDF for 3 years. Liver biopsies were performed before and after the treatment to evaluate histopathological changes. Virological, biochemical, and serological outcomes were also assessed (NCT02463019). Results: Of 146 enrolled patients (median age 47 years, 80.8% male), 123 completed the study with paired biopsies. Overall, the Ishak fibrosis score decreased in 74 (60.2%), remained unchanged in 32 (26.0%), and increased in 17 (13.8%) patients (p<0.0001). The Knodell necroinflammation score decreased in 58 (47.2%), remained unchanged in 29 (23.6%), and increased in 36 (29.3%) patients (p=0.0038). The proportion of patients with an Ishak score ≥ 3 significantly decreased from 26.8% (n=33) to 9.8% (n=12) (p=0.0002). Histological improvements were more pronounced in patients switching from placebo. Virological and biochemical outcomes also improved in placebo switchers and remained stable in patients who continued TDF. However, serum HBsAg levels did not change and no patient cleared HBsAg. Conclusions In CHB patients with minimally raised ALT, favorable histopathological, biochemical, and virological outcomes were observed following 3-year TDF treatment, for both treatment-naïve patients and those already on therapy.

Background/Aims: Treatment indications for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remain contentious, particularly for patients with mild alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. We aimed to evaluate treatment effects in this patient population. Methods: This rollover study extended a placebo-controlled trial that enrolled non-cirrhotic patients with CHB and ALT levels below two times the upper limit of normal. Following 3 years of randomized intervention with either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or placebo, participants were rolled over to open-label TDF for 3 years. Liver biopsies were performed before and after the treatment to evaluate histopathological changes. Virological, biochemical, and serological outcomes were also assessed (NCT02463019). Results: Of 146 enrolled patients (median age 47 years, 80.8% male), 123 completed the study with paired biopsies. Overall, the Ishak fibrosis score decreased in 74 (60.2%), remained unchanged in 32 (26.0%), and increased in 17 (13.8%) patients (p<0.0001). The Knodell necroinflammation score decreased in 58 (47.2%), remained unchanged in 29 (23.6%), and increased in 36 (29.3%) patients (p=0.0038). The proportion of patients with an Ishak score ≥ 3 significantly decreased from 26.8% (n=33) to 9.8% (n=12) (p=0.0002). Histological improvements were more pronounced in patients switching from placebo. Virological and biochemical outcomes also improved in placebo switchers and remained stable in patients who continued TDF. However, serum HBsAg levels did not change and no patient cleared HBsAg. Conclusions In CHB patients with minimally raised ALT, favorable histopathological, biochemical, and virological outcomes were observed following 3-year TDF treatment, for both treatment-naïve patients and those already on therapy.

Purpose: Numerous studies have produced conflicting findings regarding the efficacy of statins in prostate cancer treatment. Our objective was to examine the correlation between statin usage and clinical outcomes in Taiwanese men with de novo metastatic prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We identified patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer from the Chang Gung Research Database spanning the years 2007 to 2020. To minimize confounding bias, we employed the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. Clinical outcomes were assessed using IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the association between mortality and clinical factors. Results: The study cohort comprised 1,716 statin users and 276 non-users. Patients who used statins exhibited a longer median overall survival (85.4 months compared to 58.2 months; p=0.001) and cancer-specific survival (112.6 months compared to 75.7 months; p<0.001) compared to non-users. The median time to the development of castration-resistant status was similar between statin users and non-users (p=0.069). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, after IPTW adjustment, demonstrated that statin use was associated with improved overall survival. Conclusions Our study indicates that the use of statins following a de novo metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis enhances survival outcomes. However, statins did not appear to delay the onset of castration-resistant status. Further large-scale and long-term studies are warranted to investigate the biological effects of statins in men with prostate cancer.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.